[Top] [All Lists]

[ontac-forum] can an ontology be merely a set of well defined concepts,

To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@xxxxxx>, Tim Finin <finin@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Robert O'Harrow <oharrowr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "psp" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:53:27 -0700
Message-id: <CBEELNOPAHIKDGBGICBGEEACGOAA.psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/214.htm    (01)

John (Sowa)    (02)

It is understandable that you have this viewpoint.    (03)

I have a different viewpoint, and that is that inference and logic has
failed to be applied to any formalism sufficient to address the types of
process questions that come up in real life in very day situations.
(Prueitt, 1995)    (04)

Prueitt, Paul S. (1996a). Is Computation Something New?, published in the
Proceedings of NIST Conference on Intelligent Systems: A Semiotic
Perspective. Session: Memory, Complexity and Control in Biological and
Artificial Systems. October 20-23.    (05)

I have the opinion that logic and mathematics fail to provide the formalism
required to model complex systems (as in living biology or social systems).
At a minimum, there is nothing as yet that succeeds for living systems in
the way that logic and mathematics was successful in the engineering
sciences.    (06)

The critical point here is that this failure MAY NOT BE because we have not
find the right way , but because of the limitations inherent in the actual
processes involved in mental event formation.    (07)

This point requires evidence from cognitive neuroscience, and is NOT a
philosophical point or something to be debated.    (08)

I use the definition "ontology is a set of concepts", because this
definition does not require any logic to act on the elements of the
ontology.  The ontology is "merely" a set of concepts and relationships
defined between the concepts... with NO REQUIREMENT FOR INFERENCE.   This
definition moves us closer to Topic Maps and away from the W3C Semantic Web
standard.    (09)

John, since this is an impasse between you and I, and between others and I;
I have to ask that you not be the authority here but help move through the
impasse by acknowledging the critical point that I have raised, ie the
failure and the possibility that the failure (of logic systems) cannot be
overcome ..    (010)

Quasi Axiomatic Theory suggests that situational logic can be developed to
reflect each instance where the instance is the emergence of some new
reality (such as any time there is a part whole relationship where new
functions are actually being addressed by the whole).  So the poly-logics
and multi-logics and quasi-logics might be a possible path forward.  But NOT
Aristotle’s logic.    (011)

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (012)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>